Search for: "Thomas v. Arizona"
Results 121 - 140
of 982
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Apr 2022, 1:12 pm
Campaign Legal Center et al.; League of Women Voters; Thomas F. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 12:55 pm
Arizona allows a plaintiff to sue for money damages under 42 U.S.C. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 6:06 am
Arizona v. [read post]
18 Apr 2022, 8:45 pm
Judge Sutton's concurrence in Arizona v. [read post]
14 Apr 2022, 11:39 am
In Arizona v. [read post]
Justices add three new cases, including challenge to animal-welfare law and Warhol copyright dispute
28 Mar 2022, 10:49 am
Arizona, the justices agreed to take up the case of a death-row inmate in Arizona who had asked the justices to weigh in on a dispute over whether Lynch v. [read post]
16 Mar 2022, 2:35 pm
The ever-vigilant solicitor general also noted that the court also granted review in Arizona v. [read post]
13 Mar 2022, 9:01 pm
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and Rucho v. [read post]
12 Mar 2022, 5:51 am
Justice Thomas opined that the actual malice standard created in New York Times v. [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 9:01 pm
See Arizona State Legislature v. [read post]
1 Mar 2022, 9:00 pm
Davis v. [read post]
28 Feb 2022, 4:00 am
DorfOn Wednesday of last week, SCOTUS heard oral argument in Arizona v. [read post]
23 Feb 2022, 4:48 pm
After nearly 90 minutes of debate in Arizona v. [read post]
30 Jan 2022, 4:46 pm
On 28 January 2022 Warby LJ refused permission to appeal in Wright v McCormack. [read post]
27 Jan 2022, 2:54 pm
Arizona v. [read post]
26 Jan 2022, 9:46 am
Van Orden v. [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 10:48 am
In Sackett v. [read post]
23 Jan 2022, 9:01 pm
Rather than following Chevron v. [read post]
14 Jan 2022, 2:25 pm
Texas On January 18, 2022, the State of Texas filed a motion to dismiss its claims in Texas v. [read post]
12 Jan 2022, 12:35 pm
At that time, four justices – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – noted that they concurred in the decision to deny review because the factual record was too undeveloped to grant preliminary relief to the coach, emphasizing that they did not “necessarily agree with the decision (much less the opinion) below. [read post]